First, I have to apologise for the huge gap between posts. I promised myself when I started this blog that I would commit to at least two posts a week but we have been preparing for dissertation at my university and as a result I have been incurring record stress levels. I learned a great line for situations like this early on and it is: “This is not an excuse but only a reason.” I know I could have squeezed in some time for a post here and there so I am recommitting now to the two posts a week promise.

With that out of the way, I wanted to write a quick review of a small sample of OPACs that I have been looking at in preparation for my dissertation which will attempt to argue for further open source OPAC adoption within the library community. What I will present below is a very small sample that shows open source products outperforming proprietary products. I realize that as a small sample, I (or anyone else) could easily find a similar small sample showing proprietary systems with more functionality than their open source counterparts. However, I feel that this would be unsurprising. I think we would traditionally expect a product that comes from a commercial company and receives funding towards its development to be a better product than one that is put together with more or less no revenue stream. I think there is still a clinging to the old adage that ‘you get what you pay for’ and this has caused many libraries to shy away from open source systems. However, I’m hoping to show that these old assumptions no longer carry as much weight as they once did.

I realize that this blog is probably not the most appropriate place for a message like this. I’m sure most people reading this are other bloggers who know the power of community development and are completely on board. However, on the off-chance that this will reach the eyes of someone who is still unconverted I present the following:

First, the problem: This report is a major impetus for my research. It shows that managers and system admins are largely unhappy with a lot of the proprietary options but are still skeptical of trying an open-source service.

Second, the small sample: So, here is a list of a few libraries with proprietary systems that don’t really look great and don’t have very much functionality.

University of Sheffield: University of Sheffield use TalisPrism which offers no real options for browsing, looking for similar records, and no user-created content features. This is a tool that works well if you know what you are looking for and that is about it. It is a real bare-bones interface and program. They are in the middle of upgrading but the problem that I am trying to illustrate is that they are waiting to update to a whole new version when open source would allow for more incremental, modular updates that would allow the system to stay current in a rapidly changing technological environment with users whose needs are changing just as fast.

Sheffield Public Libraries: This is a SirsiDynix system that offers a little more functionality. An especially nice feature is being able to look at items that are nearby on a shelf which allows for some browsing. However, again, there are no community content features and the interface looks very old with the links to additional functionality in small font sizes and inconspicuous locations.

Mohave Community College: This is a Millenium OPAC and definitely the best of the propritary systems with drill-down metadata, the ability to search for similar materials, and to give reviews of the materials which allows for a bit of community content. However, the interface still isn’t great and when the user pulls up a record display it gets even worse with graphic buttons and plain hypertext links intermingled, a photo in the middle of the record and an all-around jumbled and messy design.

By contrast, here are some open source OPACs. Again, I don’t doubt that this comparison could be done differently but the important thing to note is not that a commercial company could build a better product than a community of developers but rather that an open source product can be built better than a company that receives funding for its products.

National Library of Australia: The first example may be a little bit of cheating. I know that this is a national library but I think the point is that they could probably afford a really expensive commercial product and have instead opted for VuFind, an open source alternative. Actually, if you back up from the link provided, NLA offers a fully synced search interface on its home page that allows simultaneous searching of their site, catalogue, and e-resources. The catalogue itself has a nice, clean layout, faceted search, the ability to add reviews, see similar items in a dynamic side window, and even see the copyright status.

Ann Arbor District Library: This is the brainchild of John Blyberg who had an idea for a Social OPAC, or SOPAC. What I love about this interface is the ability to browse from the start as well as search. The SOPAC also has a blog integrated on the page with any current happenings. Then on the sidebars are tags and reviews. This is a great discovery tool that allows ample opportunity for community input wich can help inform decisions and serendipitous discovery through browsing. In addition, the layout just looks really nice which I think is a theme with open source products. Every page has a very readable design with clear structure, plenty of white space, and easily identifiable links.

The John C. Fremont Library District: This last example is my personal favourite. The John C. Fremont Library serves the community of Florence, Colorado, population 3,653 as of the 2000 census. I think this is proof that open source really provides an equalizing factor for small libraries. Here is a small public library with an OPAC that provides a much better layout and a lot more functionality than the library of one of the best library schools in the UK. the system is Koha and the layout is not as well designed as the two previous examples but still pretty nice and there are lots of features to help the user including faceted search, drill-down metadata, an ability to add items to a cart for convenient searching, and a drop-down list of material lists in the catalogue. The best feature I feel for this library is the integrated Amazon reviews seeming accessed through the Amazon API because the community is so small and it may not have been able to create a large amount of review content from its users alone.

I just want to close out this article by saying that I am not criticising the institutions that have bad OPACs or saying that the other libraries with good OPACs are better. If anything, I sympathise with the administrators of proprietary systems. It is really not their fault, the fault lies mostly with the these companies that are just too slow and too risk-averse to be innovative and adaptable in an environment that demands it. The problem remains though that open source projects have yet to prove their value for money. In many ways, this is not a surprise since they are not primarily profit-seeking ventures. The community of developers spend their time creating quality products and services rather than creative, persuasive arguments to build a convincing case for inferior products. So, one of my goals is to try to get the word out about open source for the benefit of all library users and library budgets. I hope that this post can play even an incredible small part in contributing to the proof that open source does, on average, provide better value for money.

Share this:

Like this:

Related

Well, thank you from the John C. Fremont Library District in Florence Colorado. If we can help any other small and or rural libraries, please feel free to email us. We use many open source applications in our library. (Including Powerline – a simple PC reservations system, developed by one of our employees and available for free on google codes)

Thank you for the compliments on our implementation of KOHA. We have found it to be one of the best decisions our library has made. Not only is KOHA a superior product but the money it saves our library is crucial, especially in our current economy. Good luck with your dissertation!